Reviewing the primary fight, Michael Barone noted that Obama got majorities “from whites only in his home state (Illinois), in states where the white Democratic primary electorate is unusually upscale and non-Jewish (Virginia, Vermont), and in mountain states where the cultural divide is not black-white.” This racial divide, Barone explained, was part of a larger, cultural divide between Jacksonians and academics. “In state after state, we have seen Obama do extraordinarily well in academic and state capital enclaves. In state after state, we have seen Clinton do extraordinarily well in enclaves dominated by Jacksonians.”

The Jacksonian Democrats tended to be white and working-class; the academics tended to be highly educated, and often government employees. This divide is often attributed to latent racism in the Jacksonians. But a suspicion of Barack Obama shouldn’t make you a racist. Consider the case of Buchanan County, a Jacksonian stronghold on the Virginia border next to both West Virginia and Kentucky. Obama lost Buchanan County to Hillary Clinton by a margin of 90 to 9. Which might make one view Buchananites with some suspicion—except that in the 1989 gubernatorial race, Douglas Wilder won Buchanan County by 18 points over his (white) Republican rival.

The Obama Hopium guzzlers and goons want to terrify with shouts of “racist!” Hillary supporters and anyone who dares speak to Obama’s lack of qualifications and inexperience. But White Working Class voters in Buchanan County in Virginia voted for white woman Hillary Clinton and black man Douglas Wilder – but not Barack Obama. In the latest elections in Virginia, true blue New Jersey, and blue of the bluest Massachusetts, White Working Class voters turned with fury against White Obama Dimocratic candidates.

Here is a fact: Barack Obama has trouble generating enthusiasm among white working class voters. That’s not because they are white. He would have had trouble winning support among black working class voters if they had been unable to identify with him because he was black. He has trouble with working class voters because he appears to them as coming from a different world, a different realm of experience, a different class, if you like. And that’s because he does.

I have recently read several stories about Obama that treat these difficulties as if they were paradoxical. The latest is from The Washington Post. “Despite his roots,” the article is headlined, “Obama struggles to show he’s connected to middle class.” And the story—which seems to use middle class, working class, and blue collar interchangeably—describes his supposedly non-elitist roots as follows: “He turned down high-paying jobs after graduating from Harvard Law School and became a community organizer, compelled by the experience of growing up with a single mother who sometimes lived on food stamps. He married a woman from a working-class family on the South Side of Chicago, and they rented a walk-up condominium in Hyde Park.”

The first thing to note about this description is that, like many accounts I have read of Obama’s life, it gets its facts wrong. He didn’t become a community organizer after graduating from Harvard Law School, but after graduating from Columbia. He left community organizing to attend Harvard Law School. After graduating from law school, he joined a prestigious Chicago law firm with offices just off Michigan Avenue. In 1991, he began teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago. He was chair of a Chicago branch of the Annenberg Foundation. Obama’s wife, who admittedly did grow up working-class, nevertheless graduated from Princeton and Harvard Law School. And Hyde Park is a pricey upper-middle-class section of Chicago.

Judis is inconsistent and somewhat afraid of the “white” in “white working class”. He should not be afraid. The long term euphemisms “lunch bucket Joe/Jane”, or the “blue collar” terminology all mean “WHITE working class” it is just that cowardice abounds when race is the topic. Judis might be inconsistent, if not cowardly, in his use of “WHITE” but he is commendable in the declaration that the reason why WHITE working class voters do not trust/like Barack Obama has little to do with skin color.

Many African-American voters fooled themselves into feeling “affinity” for Obama because of his skin color. “Affinity” is a politically correct term for voting for someone we feel comfortable with. When a campaign wants to “reach out” to a group the campaign drafts a “surrogate” speaker who has an “affinity” with the group being courted. A union speaker will speak with a group of union members, women speakers to women’s groups, gay speakers to gay groups, etc. Judis appropriately notes that BLACK working class voters gave a “pass” to Obama because of his skin color. White voters appropriately did not provide Obama with the “pass” Black voters gave.

Judis must also be commended for his restrained, Obama biography. Judis, as just about every Big Media personality, accepts Obama’s autobiography as if the facts are true – that is an argument for another day. For the sake of argument let’s accept for now the generally promoted Obama “facts” as if they were true and go with that narrative. We see the “community organizer” picked up his Jeremiah Wright tapes and headed on to Harvard. The “community organizer” Obama, like a thief “casing the joint”, knew who the power players in Chicago were and how to court them, and then he came back ready to cut deals.

* * * * * *

Judis contributes a good working definition of “working class”. Judis expands on Marx’s definition of working class. For Marx the working class “cannot claim to own or control the means of production”. Judis rightly notes that even within that meaning there are “enormous social divisions” that must be considered in modern American society. Writes Judis, “Race and income are important, of course, but so is function, which separates people who perform routine or menial or manual tasks from people who produce ideas and complex services. College professors do not always make more money than electricians; but they live in a different world.” Judis distinguishes the world of “professionals from that of “operatives, laborers, clerical workers, and technicians.”

Obama’s parents were professionals—his mother was an anthropology PhD and his father was a Harvard-trained economist. How much money they made was immaterial. His grandmother, who raised him in Hawaii, was a bank vice-president. He went to a fancy private school and to prestigious colleges (Occidental and Columbia) that turn out professionals and managers. He clearly was not obsessed with making money, but with performing a public service—yet that doesn’t distinguish him from other professionals or other Columbia graduates. It does distinguish him from a working- or middle-class American for whom being a civil rights lawyer or professor or politician is at best a passing fantasy.

[Some words of warning for John Judis: prepare for the “uppity” defense. Any time a class based argument is introduced, or Obama is called “arrogant” or “out of touch” or “fancy”, the Hopium guzzlers and goons shout: “this is code language! Obama is being called “an uppity Negro” which proves Obama critics are “racist!!!” Of course, acceptance of such a ridiculous defense means that no black person can ever be “arrogant” or “well-off” financially or socially.]

It is admirable that Obama spent three years after graduating as a community organizer on Chicago’s South Side, but many graduates of elite colleges spend several years after college doing something unusual, before returning to graduate school or settling into a profession. Some travel around the world; some join the Peace Corps; some try to write novels. In the days of Theodore Roosevelt or George H.W. Bush, some became cowboys or oil wildcatters. It’s a tradition that goes back over a century. It’s called “sowing your wild oats.” Afterwards, they usually return to more sober and sedate occupations appropriate to their social background and education. That’s what Obama did. As I wrote of his community organizing period, he became weary of the life of the community organizer. He doubted he was accomplishing much, and decided to go to law school. He didn’t choose to go to Kent College of Law or John Marshall Law School—schools where he could have retained his ties with working class Chicago—but to Harvard Law School.

Once out of law school, Obama lived and worked over the next decade in a grey area between the very upper reaches of professional America and the country’s managers, owners, and rulers. He didn’t just have access to more money and live differently from ordinary Americans; he possessed power and authority that they didn’t have. He was of a different world, even if as a politician he would occasionally visit theirs.

Judis is subtle in his dissection of Barack Obama. In his previous work Judis noted about Obama that he was “a disillusioned activist who fashioned his political identity not as an extension of community organizing but as a wholesale rejection of it.” Like a Chicagoan on a hooker binge weekend, Obama tired of the play and decided to advance himself. Isn’t that what Howard Dean did too? Dean became a ski bum as his “wild oats” adventure, Obama decided to check out the “peeps” he never knew and was disgusted by.

There is no paradox, therefore, in Obama’s distance from white working class voters. What would be unusual is if he were able to echo their concerns in a deeply moving rather than in a somewhat mechanical way. Yes, there have been some gifted politicians of an upper class or professional background who have been able to do so. Some, like Bill Clinton, Lyndon Johnson, or Ronald Reagan, could draw upon their working class childhoods; others, like Franklin Roosevelt or Edward Kennedy, could evince a kind of upper-class paternalism.

These difficulties were clear before Obama spoke in San Francisco, but they’re much more glaring now. In the speech, Obama appeared to say that Pennsylvania voters’ opposition to gun control or abortion or immigration or free trade was pathological–a product of what Marxist philosopher Herbert Marcuse once called “false consciousness.” On the other hand, he implied that when he voiced opposition to an issue like free trade–Obama has consistently hammered Clinton on her support for the North American Free Trade Agreement–he was simply pandering to these voters’ displaced anxieties. He was saying to these upscale San Francisco Democrats, “I am really one of you, and I am not one of them.”

Was it “code language” that Judis employed when he traced Obama’s remarks in San Francisco to Marxist Marcuse? Certainly, like his “creative class” cheerleader pom-pom Big Blog Boys, Obama has contempt for the White (yes, Black too) Working Class. For those that have forgotten, here is what Obama said in San Francisco, among the wealthy:

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

It was said behind closed doors to the chablis-and-brie set of San Francisco, in response to a question as to why he was not doing better in that benighted and barbarous land they call Pennsylvania.

Like Dr. Schweitzer, home from Africa to address the Royal Society on the customs of the upper Zambezi, Barack described Pennsylvanians in their native habitats of Atloona, Alquippa, Johnstown and McKeesport. [snip]

This is the pitch-perfect Hollywood-Harvard stereotype of the white working class, the caricature of the urban ethnic — as seen from the San Francisco point of view. [snip]

Though he sees himself as a progressive who has risen above prejudice, Barack was reflecting and pandering to the prejudice of the class to which he himself belongs, and which he was then addressing.

A few months back, Michelle Obama revealed her mindset about America with the remark that, “for the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country.” Barack has now revealed how he, too, sees the country. The Great Unifier divides the nation into us and them.

The “us” are the privileged cosmopolitan elite of San Francisco and his Ivy League upbringing. The “them” are the folks in the small towns and rural areas of that other America.

Donna Brazile: A new Democratic coalition is younger. It is more urban, as well as suburban, and we don’t have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics.

David Axelrod: The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years. This is not new that Democratic candidates don’t rely solely on those votes.

Obama snubbed the White working class and now the white working class returns the favor. [We’ll have more on the implications of this in Part IV of this series of articles.]

Hillary Clinton was the change, the big change and could have altered the electoral landscape. According to CBS News:

CBS News’ Election and Survey Unit’s survey analyst extraordinaire Jennifer De Pinto goes inside the exit polls from last week’s election and finds some interesting nuggets about those Hillary Clinton supporters who voted for John McCain:

As voters left the polls on Election Day, many were asked how they would have voted if the election match-up were between Hillary Clinton and John McCain rather than Barack Obama and McCain. 52 percent said they would have backed the former Democratic candidate; 41 percent would have voted for McCain, wider than Obama’s 7-point margin over McCain.

Interestingly, 16 percent of McCain voters said they would have voted for Clinton, the Democrat, if she had been her party’s nominee.

So who were these potential cross-over voters?

# They were older: 61% of them were age 45 and above.

# 53% were women; while 47% were men.

# 43% of these voters who supported McCain but would have backed Clinton if she were in the race described themselves as Independents. 31% were Republicans; while 26% were Democrats.

# 84% of them were white – higher than the electorate at large. 12% were Hispanic, compared to 9% of the total electorate.

# 21% of McCain voters who would have supported Clinton said race was factor in their vote. 19% of McCain voters overall said race was factor in their vote.

# 61% of these McCain voters who would have backed Clinton earned $50K or more annually. 39% earned less. 61% do not have a college degree.

# These voters valued experience over change. 47% said experience was their top candidate quality and 32% said a candidate who shares their values. Just 10% picked change. But like voters overall, the economy was the top issue for these voters.

# 58% of McCain voters who would have supported Clinton if she were a candidate said their candidate’s personal and leadership qualities was more important in their vote; 36% said it was their candidate’s positions on the issues.

# Among McCain backers overall, voters were divided with 48% choosing issues and 49% picking qualities. But among the electorate at large, 58% said their candidate’s position on the issues was more important.

While 85% of Obama voters said they would have voted for Clinton had she been the Democratic candidate, 13% would not have supported her including 6% who said they would have backed McCain and 7% who said they would not have voted.

# 60% of these voters were under age 45.

# They were mostly men. 59% were men; while 41% were women.

# 41% of these voters who supported Obama but would not have backed Clinton if she were in the race described themselves as Democrats. 20% were Republicans; while 38% were Independents.

# While most of these voters were white (74%); 17% were black – higher than the share of the total electorate. 5% were Hispanic.

# 53% of these Obama voters who would not have backed Clinton earned $50K or more annually. 47% earned less. 58% do not have a college degree.

# These voters were clearly looking for change – 57% picked it as their top candidate quality. This was followed by values (20%) and cares (12%). Experience ranked last with 8%.

# 60% of these voters said issue positions were more important; 38% said it was leadership and personal qualities.

With Hillary Clinton we could have had fundamental change AND an experienced leader, not a boob and a stooge. But the Democratic establishment imposed their will and gifted Obama the nomination. This is one of the greatest historical mistakes in American history.

The “Mistake In ’08” is increasingly recognized but not yet repudiated by the perpetrators. The guilty will be punished with the electoral death penalty.

109 thoughts on “Mistake In ’08, Part III – The White Working Class And The Racism Smear”

Fox is sticking to Hillary today as they have investigated the Orphanage that she and Mother Theresa opened. Its apparently closed and has been closed a long time. A source said they never facilitate one adoption and was probably never opened. Well Fox is gearing up now to pull Hillary in for the killing. Sorry folks, I just can’t watch it this time.

It looks like it closed in 2002. I don’t think Hillary said anything wrong in the speech but she could have verified if it was still open and what happened to it. I wonder if the rich Chevy Chase residents put up a NIMBY fight to move it.

According to a pastor at the church next door to the home’s former location, the adoption ministry failed to take off because the Roman Catholic nuns who ran it weren’t allowed to care for babies without medical personnel on site. “I’m not sure the legal thing that came down upon them, but they realized they needed to expend their energies in another way,” said Maureen Freshour, who along with her husband, David, pastors Chevy Chase Baptist Church and lives nearby. Freshour has stayed in touch with the nuns from the Missionaries of Charity order who ran the home and said that the remaining three or four sisters have moved to another house in Washington, where they are ministering to the homeless.

“This has been a core issue—adoption—whether the home [Clinton] talked about survived or not,” said Chuck Johnson, chief operating officer of the National Council for Adoption. “It’s an issue she’s been consistent on.”
[snip]
Clinton followed through and set up a home for unwanted babies in Washington in just over a year, no small feat in a city that was known then for its inefficient and corrupt bureaucracy. The Mother Teresa Home for Infant Children opened in June 1995 in the district’s affluent Chevy Chase neighborhood to house eight pregnant mothers and their babies—but it remains unclear whether it facilitated any adoptions.

I called the Missionaries of Charity in Washington, a worldwide Roman Catholic order established by Mother Teresa. The nun who answered the phone said she couldn’t give her name because they aren’t allowed to talk to the press. She did say, however, that the sisters who are in the order now were not in the order when the adoption home opened, so she wasn’t sure why it closed. She added that the order sold the Chevy Chase house in 2002. “We work with the poor and we didn’t have any work there because it’s a rich neighborhood,” she said. The sisters, she added, are now working with the homeless and those with AIDS in a more transitional neighborhood in the northeast section of town on Otis Street.

Iran and its muscle flexing across the Persian Gulf will be at the heart of Hillary Clinton’s visit to Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

When Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton travels to the Persian Gulf Saturday, the unspoken focus of the trip will be Iran.

In announcing Secretary Clinton’s trip, the State Department said only that she would speak Feb. 14 at the US-Islamic World Forum, hosted by the Qatari government and the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center. Also, she will meet with Qatar’s emir and foreign minister. And in Saudi Arabia on Feb. 15-16, she will meet with King Abdullah bin Abdul al-Saud and Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal.

But Iran and its muscle flexing across the Gulf region will be at the heart of the visit, Middle East experts say – as will US attempts to increase pressure on the Iranian regime over its continuing pursuit of nuclear capabilities.

“Iran will very much be front and center in Secretary Clinton’s visit,” says James Phillips, a specialist in Middle Eastern affairs at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. “That’s especially true because the Gulf countries, including those she’s visiting, are even more nervous than the US about the rise of Iran and its growing power.”

Clinton’s trip comes as the United States steps up its efforts to pressure Iran to curtail its nuclear ambitions and to contain Iran’s expanding military power in the region.

The US is pursuing a new United Nations Security Council resolution of economic sanctions against Iran, with Defense Secretary Robert Gates saying earlier this week that the US hopes to see approval of the resolution “within weeks.” At the same time, the Obama administration is accelerating a reinforcement of missile defenses in the Persian Gulf, which was initiated under President Bush.

Last month Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the US Central Command, spoke publicly of the deployment of American antimissile batteries, “two in each of four countries.” Although General Petraeus did not provide names, Qatar is known to be one of the countries to have accepted the missiles. Petraeus did say that the US is keeping Aegis cruisers, equipped with antimissile systems capable of intercepting medium-range missiles, on permanent patrol in the Persian Gulf.

Clinton is likely to do some indirect lobbying for the new Security Council resolution through her Arab interlocutors. Of the five Security Council countries with veto power over Council actions, only China remains publicly opposed to passing a new set of sanctions at this time.

When she met with her Chinese counterpart recently, Clinton emphasized what she called the short-term perspective of China’s current position, saying that China’s reluctance to move forward on sanctions was related to China’s close commercial relations with Iran. She called on China to think more in terms of its long-term interests in a stable Middle East.

Following up on that argument, Clinton will be looking to the Arabs to “act as a counterweight [to Iran] on China and help unlock its Security Council vote,” Mr. Phillips says.

“The US is hoping to use these discussions with the Arabs as a way to encourage China to look at its long-term economic interests,” Phillips adds. “The Arabs could let the Chinese know that it will hurt them economically with the Arab countries in the long run if China clings to this pro-Iran position.”

Clinton’s Gulf trip was announced even as the US Treasury Department took additional action against Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps under existing US sanctions. As of Wednesday, the Treasury said, it was designating one IRGC general and four companies as proliferators of weapons of mass destruction.

“Today’s action exposing Khatam al-Anbiya subsidiaries will help firms worldwide avoid business that ultimately benefits the IRGC and its dangerous activities,” Stuart Levey, undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, said in a statement Wednesday.

The Gulf countries already know firsthand about Iran’s “dangerous activities,” Phillips of Heritage says, so Clinton shouldn’t have to do a hard sell to get the Arabs on board in efforts to curtail Iran. “Iran already pursues a long list of destabilizing activities in the region,” Phillips says, listing Iran’s support for extremist groups like Hezbollah, cases of it fomenting unrest among Shiite Muslim minorities in majority Sunni Muslim countries, and “strong suspicions” that Iran masterminded a coup attempt in Bahrain.

“If Iran ends up with a nuclear weapon, it will feel all the more freedom to act with impunity in the region, and things could get all the more dangerous in the Gulf,” Phillips says. “The Arabs already know that, but the US is hoping they can help convince China to get on board in deterring Iran.”

A small excerpt from Larry King’s interview with M.O. that aired on January 9, 2010. She talks about Hillary…

——————-

KING: How is the — it was so bitter — well, rather bitter in the campaign with Hillary, when they were going at each other.

OBAMA: Yes, it seems so long ago.

KING: Yes. How are they doing now together?

OBAMA: They’re great. Hillary Clinton is an amazing secretary of State. I mean she would have been an amazing president. She was an amazing attorney. She’s a phenomenal professional. And she’s proven to be a tremendous asset in — in so many ways.

So the relationship is — is — is strong. They share the same views in terms of international policy and approach. And we’re seeing the outcome of that on the international stage. I think, you know, we can say pretty clearly that the United States — the — the view of this nation around the world has changed. People are enthusiastic about the potential.

Things aren’t perfect. We’re still a nation fighting two wars. But when we travel around the country, the excitement and the possibility are palpable. And I think that’s because of the president, but I think it’s also because of our secretary of State.

I had a conversation today with two hispanic women. I told them I had worked for HRC, and I could not get over how the state Dems treated her, even though she won. I was not sure they would say, but they both indicated (they were mother and daughter)that they thought he would not run for a second term.

O’Reilly has just said of Fox the reason its OK to smear Clinton and not Palin is because Hillary has done some questionable things. So there you go they are going after Hillary and are try and make us believe Sarah is white.

Its all so familiar.

WHo knows what Fox is up to, or who the alliegance to especially since Prince Tallalwal owes 40% of the Fox News Network.

Jan: when Michelle Obama praises Hillary as she did on Larry King, I smell a rat.

During the campaign, Michelle uttered the infamous lines “if you cannot take care of your own house how can you take care of the White House”. Michelle is also the one who said if Hillary was the candidate she was not sure she could support her and would have to think about it. Those statements reveal how she really feels about Hillary. They are rooted in insecurity and dishonesty. You can see it in her scowl even today.

The question is why are Bambi and his wife praising Hillary now, after they disparaged her personally as well as professionally during the campaign? I do not know.

Michelle and Barack are grifters. They do not hand out compliments just because they are deserved. Typically there is an ulterior motive.

One possibility is they are trying to legitimatize his foreign policy failures by saying they have the same foreign policy views. Of course we know that is not true. He is a utopian and she is a pragmatist. This difference was drawn into high relief during the primaries. But he has tried the utopian approach with Chavez and others and got hosed. He has failed to make progress in the Arab Israeli peace talks, Iran, North Korea, etc. In that case, he is using Hillary for cover.

Another possibility is Obama is not as blind as we think. He knows his magic is wearing off. His Administration looks inept, e.g. Neopolitano. There is no major accomplishment he can point to after a full year in office. The independents have left him (for the reasons Admin discusses in this article). Therefore he wants to piggy back on Hillary’s popularity and foreign policy accomplishments to legitimatize his presidency. If that is the case then it is the opposite of what FOX is trying to do, which is to attack Hillary so he has no one to prop him up.

JanH, What do you think Iran promising a “punch”?? Do you think they are going to do anything? Bebe sounded serious when he got on TV and said “you better get serious sanctions and do it now”. Thats pretty ominus!

ani–that was a great article you posted over at No Quarter last night. Really terrific.

BTW: I got a kick out of the comments about Schumer–oily, unctuous, never stand between him and a camera, that stupid insincere grin, the oily handshake, need to wash your hands afterwards, attends every ribbon cutting event just to be seen, and (by inference) not a legitimate bone in his body.

Would a man like that betray Hillary? Would he say hit her in the head with a 2×4. He claims he never did this. She says she believes him. I beg to differ. I think he is a politician of the lowest order who is capable of anything. If he ever becomes Senate Majority Leader (or Minority Leader) it will be a tragedy for the country. Almost as bad as what we have now.

Meme gushing about Hillary is a joke and that is why I posted the excerpt. She is trying to act like a “First Lady” should. Unfortunately, she is just a cheap immitation of one.

——————-

confloyd,

This is why I only show I watch on Fox is Brett Baer and once in a while Greta. Otherwise my blood pressure goes sky high, especially with someone as smarmy as O’reilly and ignorant as Hannity.

—————–

confloyd,

I’m not sure what to think of Iran’s threat. I blame obama 150% for his stupid procrastination with anyone and anything of a terrorist nature. If he waits long enough, Iran, North Korea, and a few others will do their damnedest to destroy Israel and most likely parts of America at the same time.

According to the report, although Perry is at 39% to Kay Bailey Hutchison’s 28%, Debra Medina is now at a whopping 24%! There are major splits within the race along ideological lines according to the poll results. Medina is now outpolling Hutchison with conservatives by a 25-23 margin

——————————————————————

This is good rule by how the people of this country feel, I think a tea party if do able. We’re still several months before nov.

confloyd, I don’t know a lot about Medina, but she is pretty much a straight libertarian. Hates big government, for states rights, against stupid wars. Ron Paul type, but smarter and not as loony-talking.

I will NOT vote for Perry – he is a sleaze. Kay is okay as far as republicans go. The Dem is a non-entity, since this is TX.

Iran’s telecommunications agency announced what it described as a permanent suspension of Google Inc.’s email services, saying a national email service for Iranian citizens would soon be rolled out.

It wasn’t clear late Wednesday what effect the order had on Gmail services in Iran, or even if Iran had implemented its new policy. Iranian officials have claimed technological advances in the past that they haven’t been able to execute.

A Google spokesman said in a statement, “We have heard from users in Iran that they are having trouble accessing Gmail. We can confirm a sharp drop in traffic, and we have looked at our own networks and found that they are working properly. Whenever we encounter blocks in our services we try to resolve them as quickly as possibly because we strongly believe that people everywhere should have the ability to communicate freely online.”

Wbboei, I don’t think for one minute Hillary believes him. I bet by the time she suspended her campaign she knew each and everyone of her betrayers. She is being gracious
———————————————–
Neither do I. But as you say she is being gracious whereas I was being rhetorical. Frankly, I think everybody has Schumer’s number by now. Chuckie Cheese.

Christ had only one Judas in his entourage. Hillary has a dozen. But one by one they are finding karma.

Speaking of which, I wonder if Edwards will retain counsel in his pending divorce action or will proceed pro se. Big tobacco lawyer and all. Hopefully he will proceed pro se and represent himself. Why? Because any lawyer who tries to represent himself in a legal action to which he is a party has a fool for a client.

Wbboei, we have been conducting an investigation and we believe the Schumer betrayal stories are true. We’ll post on this in later Mistake in ’08 articles.

As to Hillary, it is possible she is being more than gracious. It’s “keep your enemies” closer and don’t let them know you are on to them. When the time is proper, settle all family bizenizz. (Obligatory Godfather mention here: Michael Corleone knew who the traitors were in his operation – the brother-in-law Carlo and old friend Tessio. But Michael waited for a long time. When it was time, Michael took care of “all family business”.)

Noam Chomsky wrote about how the people in power are always the very rich and the very intelligent. He said “the men of best quality” will always try to control “the rascal majority”. I guess they learned this after the British established the ministry of information. Isn’t this how we went to battle in WW1?

“we have been conducting an investigation and we believe the Schumer betrayal stories are true. We’ll post on this in later Mistake in ‘08 articles.”

I commented on this in last week’s article and look forward to the results of your investigation. As I commented then, I don’t have any doubt that Schumer is capable of this, and I’m not defending him. I’m just looking for a more reliable source than “Game Change,” which was unsourced and contained several questionable allegations. Whatever your sources for the investigation, I would trust them to be more reliable than “Game Change.”

Admin: you might enjoy the repartee at No Quarter concerning Schumer and his bona fides–or lack thereof. This was in the comment section of Ani’s excellent article. I do not know who Arabella is but to me her writing is like a melody by Strauss.
————————————————————————————-

arabella trefoil

Very interesting. Chuck Shumer is one of my Senators. He is one of the oiliest sons of bitches I’ve ever encountered. His statement could mean a lot of things, especially since he’s such a weasel.

Taking it on face value, I’d say he’s scared. More tea leaves to interpret. But anything Shumer says has to be scrutinized with a lot of care. The guy is a a publicity hog for one thing. I don’t think you can cut a ribbon at a new senior citizens’ center or dedicicate a new parking garage in New York State without Chuck showing up and shoving everyone aside to grin at the cameras.

Arabella, next time you might try washing with Dawn detergent before you shake his hand. It was found to be a very good shark repellent by the Navy when they tested various things to see what they should put in liferafts and on life vests to repel sharks. Dawn worked best of all the things they tested.
Yesterday, 19:27:11 – Flag – Like – Reply
Liked byBreeze

atti
This is so ludicrous. Schumer acting patriotic? What a stunner. It is amazing how consistently phony the upper echelon of the D party is. Think about it: Obama, Axelrod, Dean, Reid, Pelousi, Schumer, Murtha…oh, that’s right, that mother is dead, but you get the picture. How slimey can one get or appear?
Schumer, you’re the winner.
Yesterday, 17:31:36 – Flag – Like – Reply

arabella trefoil

atti, be careful. You just called Shumer a winner. One of his staff members will be contacting you shortly to find out when the award ceremony will be.

Wbboei, we have been conducting an investigation and we believe the Schumer betrayal stories are true. We’ll post on this in later Mistake in ‘08 articles.

As to Hillary, it is possible she is being more than gracious. It’s “keep your enemies” closer and don’t let them know you are on to them. When the time is proper, settle all family bizenizz. (Obligatory Godfather mention here: Michael Corleone knew who the traitors were in his operation – the brother-in-law Carlo and old friend Tessio. But Michael waited for a long time. When it was time, Michael took care of “all family business”.)
————————————————-
Prior to the book I was inclined to believe that Schumer was a Hillary supporter. He certainly made a big showin of it. If all we had to go on was the book, I would be skeptical. After all, it is riddled with hearsay statements from unaccredited sources. That does not mean they are untrue, but standing alone they lack credibility.

There is some corroborating evidence to consider. First, there is the character of Schumer as described by Arabella and others above. A man who is this oily and unctuous will do anything to get ahead including betraying a friend. Second, there is his idiosyncratic response to this charge–first the delay and then a general denial. That is the not what you normally get from an innocent man.

But none of this is conclusive. All that it shows at most is that he is capable of betraying Hillary. Whether he actually did it remains unclear. I hope your research sheds further light on that issue. I can tell you right now what I think. I think he is guilty as hell. But that is a far cry from what I can prove from the evidence elicited thus far.

Finally, I completely agree with advice for Hillary her friends close and her enemies closer. I particularly like the clip from The Godfather where Michael tells the traitor “don’t say you are innocent. It insults my intelligence. It makes me angry, etc.” After he confesses and implicates others, take him for a ride, figuratively speaking.

Security forces attacked the crowd of protesters in Arya-Shahr, opening fire on them. Several people have reportedly been injured during the shooting. However, the crowd has not dispersed and keeps chanting slogans. Security forces are firing directly on the masses of protesters.
There is a heavy presence of military and intelligence forces in Tehran streets.

MIAMI: The US is quietly advocating a plan to reconstruct earthquake-ravaged Haiti that could involve an even more central role for the former US president Bill Clinton.

The plan, designed by staff of the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and presented to Haitian officials in recent days, calls for the creation of a commission to oversee the ”urgent early recovery” during the next 18 months.

The commission’s top priority is to create create a development authority to plan and co-ordinate billions of dollars in foreign assistance for at least 10 years.

The plan, obtained by The Miami Herald, states that the commission could be co-chaired by the Haitian Prime Minister and ”a distinguished senior international figure engaged in the recovery effort”. Haiti observers believe the job description describes Mr Clinton, although he is not named in the document.

The United Nations has already named him to co-ordinate its reconstruction efforts. ”I think he’s a good choice if he can commit himself to doing the job,” said Robert Maguire, an expert on Haiti who is chairman of the US Institute of Peace’s Haiti Working Group. ”He seems to be a logical choice, someone with a deep commitment, connections and the trust of most, if not all of the players.”

Mr Clinton could not be reached for comment.

Details of the plan came as the judge weighing whether 10 US missionaries should go on trial for trying to take a busload of children out of Haiti finished his questioning of them.

Lawyers said Judge Bernard Saint-Vil could issue his decision at any time. The missionaries appeared together in court on Wednesday, along with some of the children’s parents.

Judge Saint-Vil interrogated the American church group members separately on Monday and Tuesday, and has spoken to some of the parents this week.

Johnny Antoine, 33, the father of a 10-month-old child he entrusted to the Americans, said he wanted them freed. Mr Antoine said he had willingly given his child over because his house had collapsed and he had little means to care for the infant. He said he spoke to the missionaries’ leader, Laura Silsby. ”She said she came to Haiti to help me,” he said, adding he had hoped his child would be returned to him later after receiving care and schooling.

The Americans, most of whom are from a Baptist group in Idaho, were charged last week with child kidnapping and criminal association after being arrested on January 29 trying to take 33 children, aged two to 12, across the border to an orphanage they were trying to set up in the Dominican Republic.

I found that phrase very telling. When I think about qualifications for the job of President, this is one thing I have never thought of. However, instincts comes with experience.

When you watch NCIS and Gibbs, or really any of us in our jobs for a long time, you really get a gut feeling, that something it not right,and you keep your mouth shut, check the facts, dig deeper, ask more questions, call the experts that you know and weed through the information to get the important facts together.

Of course this is what is missing. First he does not know how to make an immediate responds without screwing it up (either he has the correct response or he needs time to get it). People with instincts do. Second, when he does respond correctly it is days late, and by then people have already judged him.

Experience tells you you give am immediate response if you are 100% sure of your answer, if not, you indicate that you want to lay out the facts correctly, and you will have a response within a quick timeframe. Then you nail that deadline with the right answer.

As Rod Blagojevich pleaded not guilty Wednesday to corruption charges in a revised indictment, his attorneys filed a motion seeking to play hundreds of secret recordings at his trial. The former governor and his lawyers have suggested their best chance of beating the charges would be for the public to hear all of the conversations captured by the government and decide for themselves whether the talk constitutes corruption. Prosecutors have alleged Blagojevich sought to enrich himself by leveraging the powers of his office, and that he attempted to sell the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama to the highest bidder.

NMF: to your point, in the realm of business the stories are legion about business executives who build a profitable business, understand the niche they are in, develop it better than their competitors, and over a period of time become the darlings of Wall Street. Then there comes a time when the owner who knows the business steps down and they hire someone for the outside who has a Harvard MBA, has shown promise as a consultant for a company like McKensie, and he comes in to take the company to the next level. There is a new sheriff in town, he lays down his new fangled theories of how to run a company, and to people who know the business his theories have the smell of the lamp, which is to say the classroom as opposed to real life. A year or two thereafter, the company has lost sight of the business they are in, they send confusing signals to the market and business decline is what generally follows. Failure occurs at the point where theoretical wisdom meets hard core reality, and reality wins as it always does sooner of later. You will not read about this in the Harvard Business Review or the McKensie Business letter, because it dumps cold water on the illusion of what they are offering. But it is real enough and has proven to be the demise of many great companies. It is axiomatic. For a business or a political leader to succeed, he or she must have an intimate understanding of the business, and an intuitive sense of what works and what does not. The only way you get that is through experience. The counterveiling theory that a smart executive who does not understand the business can succeed by surrounding himself with talented staff people is a snare and a delusion which has cost the careers of many rank and file employees since this age of big business mergers and consolidations first begun.

I don’t always think you can pick the next person in the company, but I do think you should select from within the company or industy. Companies that are successful tend to select from within, while failing companies tend to bring them in from the outside. Neither of these approaches will assure success.

It is selecting the correct person, with the right amount of internal, industy experience. In other words, the board and the selection people must have the right gut/experience feeling also. I am horrified at the times when I have seen none experts in the field select someone in their image, and not someone that is right for the job. Staff, no matter how smart, cannot take the place of a leader. Leadership by committe never works, and that is what we really have right now.

Since I take a dim view of Roland Martin to begin with, nothing stupid he says really surprises or disappoints me. He is just a fat little gangsta wannabe telling a big gangsta to do a St. Valentine’s Day Massacre on everyone who opposes his plan to destroy the country. This should resolve any remaining doubt about the bona fides and sanity of good ol’ Roland. He needs to progress from CNN punditry to his real forte–gangsta rap.

But Al Capone Died of Syphilis In Jail
Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)
Thursday, February 11th at 10:44AM EST
No Comments

Roland Martin is giving voice to millions of frustrated Democrats who see Barack Obama has a larger Senate majority than George W. Bush ever had, in fact the largest majority in decades, and has not been half as effective at using it as Bush was with his majority.

The difference, of course, is that Bush was largely pushing popular items like tax cuts and necessary items like national security. Barack Obama is trying to push the country left.

Republicans can only hope that Barack Obama does take Roland Martin’s advice. Roland writes:

Obama’s critics keep blasting him for Chicago-style politics. So, fine. Channel your inner Al Capone and go gangsta against your foes. Let ‘em know that if they aren’t with you, they are against you, and will pay the price.

Of course, Al Capone was killing people on his own team. So Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid might ought to watch out for horse heads in their beds. And Capone wound up in jail for tax evasion and died of syphilis. Given Obama’s rigging of budget, revenue, and unemployment numbers, we just might see an Elliot Ness type like Mitch Daniels take him down.

I don’t always think you can pick the next person in the company, but I do think you should select from within the company or industy. Companies that are successful tend to select from within, while failing companies tend to bring them in from the outside.
————————
Agreed.

In the current context, choosing Hillary was an example of hiring the most qualified candidate, and hiring from within. That was the path to national success and recovery. And the path not taken thanks to big media, big money and party hacks.

Hiring Barack was a case of hiring from the outside, which is a path fraught with a thousand misfortunes, and the final destination is national failure. That was a serious and consequential mistake which will be paid for by this and future generations.

And that is why the culpable parties must be held culpable. If Obama did not exist they would have had to invent him.

“[H]ow is it possible, at this late date, for Obama to be this clueless?” he asks.

He continues:

There’s good reason to feel outraged at the growing appearance that we’re running a system of lemon socialism, in which losses are public but gains are private. And at the very least, you would think that Obama would understand the importance of acknowledging public anger over what’s happening.

But no. If the Bloomberg story is to be believed, Obama thinks his key to electoral success is to trumpet “the influence corporate leaders have had on his economic policies.”

Obama thinks his key to electoral success is to trumpet “the influence corporate leaders have had on his economic policies.”–Paul Krugman. . . we are doomed.
——————-
Paul: Obama is owned by big business lock stock and barrel. It has been that way since his earlies days in Chicago. He is a Rezko counter party politician. His modus operandi is to reward big business at the expense of constituents.

You have consistently ignored the evidence. Big business filled his campaign coffers. Big business planned his campaign (Wolf UBS). Big business used their media subsidiaries to promote his candidacy and eliminate his opponents.

And what did they get in exchange for this labor of love?

Obama gave them a stimulus plan. Obama gave them a sweetheart deal on big pharma. Obama let their lobbyists draft their legislation. Obama pursues cap and trade which will give them a carbon credits exchange. Obama pursues amnesty which will give them cheap labor and undercut the US labor market. Obama creates jobs overseas with our tax monies.

Obama makes them part of his inner circle of economic advisors and you say nothing about it. But now that he praises them for their contributions to his economic policies now finally you speak up. You say we are doomed.

My friend, if you had been paying attention then you would know that we were doomed along time ago. You were happy enough to support him when he was on the crest of the wave. Now that he is sinking you become a critic.

EE looks like a typical attorney…..sue sue sue!!!
——
Young said Elizabeth Edwards has threatened to file an “alienation of affection” lawsuit against him for contributing to the downfall of their marriage.

North Carolina is among about a half-dozen states that allow a person to sue a third party for contributing to the breakup of a marriage.

Jilted spouses typically use the remedy to seek money from their partner’s lover. The Edwardses are multimillionaires.
————————–

They had a follow up on the Judas Richardson story. The NM Gov can hire over 450 political supporters, and they are not governed by the Personnel Rules that regular State employees are. So therefore a Public relations employee hired by the state rules makes around $60K, but the Public Relations people that Richardson has hired average (GET THIS) $100K, yes, $40 K more.

When you are trying to balance budgets, and cutting school (and our school system is in the bottom 25), this does not go over well.

United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to visit Australia, possibly in April or May

February 11, 2010

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will come to Australia, possibly as early as April or May, after being forced to cancel her January visit to head emergency responses to the Haitian earthquake.

Several dates are now being considered to tie the trip in with AUSMIN defence talks, with the earliest being just a month after US President Barack Obama visits Australia in mid-March.

The Obama trip will be one of several US presidential trips to Australia being planned for his current term as leader, a diplomatic source said. Whether Mr Obama makes it to Melbourne is yet to be confirmed, as details of his itinerary are being finalised. It will depend on what leisure time the first family has left over after formalities in Canberra and their personal choice on what attractions – ranging from the Great Barrier Reef to the Opera House or an MCG footy match – to attend.

With much of the capital shut down for snow and normal business reduced the past couple days, what are principals and policy makers up to?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had lunch with Rahm Emanuel yesterday, the State Department mentioned yesterday. She gets to put away her snowboots on Saturday when she heads to Qatar and Saudi Arabia. In Riyadh, she’ll be meeting with Saudi King Abdullah and Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal. In Qatar, she’ll meet with Qatari leaders, as well as speak at the U.S.-Islamic World Forum, hosted by the Qatari government and the Saban Center.

Clinton’s deputy Jack Lew went on a quiet trip to Jordan, Israel, and Egypt last weekend, a source said, leaving last Thursday.

Her other deputy Jim Steinberg and Assistant Secretary for Europe Phil Gordon held meetings in Armenia and Georgia last week, before attending the Munich Security Conference over the weekend.

National Security Advisor Gen. Jim Jones also attended the Munich conference. NSC spokesman Mike Hammer accompanied Jones and the U.S. delegation to Munich, and then traveled on, and is currently attending a conference of State public affairs officers in Dubai.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who often travels pretty quietly, made an unusually high profile series of calls for a new round of Iran sanctions on a trip this past week to Turkey, Italy, and France, getting back yesterday.

Several lawmakers are heading on Codels over the President’s Day Recess, with at least one Codel headed to Afghanistan.

UPDATE: Bonus trip report: Undersecretary of State Bill Burns is headed to Syria and Lebanon, several officials say.

Under Secretary of State Ellen Tauscher is also just getting back from missile defense talks in Warsaw and Bucharest, the Global Zero conference in Paris, the Munich Security Conference last weekend, a NATO briefing in Belgium, and meetings in London.

I never liked Martin, and while only now Gergen is speaking of Obama’s potential “crisis”, he along with the other tools at CNN was is awe of Bambi throughout the primary/election. All of these 2 faced , Clinton back stabbers , make me puke.

admin: Looks like the Iranian “punch” was to tell the world they were now nuclear. Well this is what BUsh and Obama have been waiting for. Bush hymhawed around and Obama carried thru until the most dangerous regime in history is now nuclear.

NMF, Thanks for posting that WSJ article, it substantiates my feelings that the republicans rolled over to let Obama in. But that article sure sounded like it also believes Obama is a manufactured Potus with ill-defined sources.
Its really something to see this from the WSJ.

It still amazes me that for the most important job in the country, which affects the world we have no job description with standards of experience that people must meet in order to run. Right now, it is what crappy political game the parties want to pull on you. It also amazes me that the Supreme Court does not have the wisdom and political independance that the founding fathers created it for, as they could have stopped this scam.

Here’s an excellent quote from Maurice Strong in 1992 at the United Nations. If you ever want to know how Soros and party thinks of the middle class this quote will fill you in.

“…current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable. A shift is necessary. which will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations…” [1] Maurice Strong , opening speech at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development

Beck must read this blog and CW because apparently today he is saying that Medina in Texas is a birther and he is backing Perry. Well that tells me Beck you are a globalist and not to be trusted. Your picture of GWB on the website is yours. You are still behind GWB and that is nothing but another criminal political mob gang that needs to be stomped out. I will vote for Medina.

wbboei, We really need to be careful which republicans we are backing because the Bush tenacles are long and spidery. You never know who they have their claws into.

I think Glenn Beck is being exposed for the fraud he is. He is an arm of the Bush family that got us in this mess. I think Glenn is there is get people to take a second look at them. They are all globalists and are the reason there is NO jobs in this country. Obama is helping them.

Beck labeled Medina as a truther, she is not a truther, she never believed the govt. was in on it. Beck also would not let her discuss the trans-texas highway or imminent domain. Beck most certainly has discussed imminent domain while trying to call all democrats including Hillary progressives.

Beck is a fraud and a dangerous one at that. His bubble is about to burst.

wbboei, I know you think it will be Newt, but my personal opinion and what I have heard is that it will the Rino Rick Perry/Sarah Palin. I hope we can manage to blow the cover of these corrupt republicans before this goes down bad for the country.

Connie: Beck reminds me of the character in Network. But he has consistently revealed information that was hidden from our view by mainstream media. That fact alone has significant value. I wish he had read the following book before he went in there. Denzenhall has been effective in damage control and getting his client out of box canyons alive while the bad guys are shooting at them:
———————————————————-

“We’re gonna nail ’em!” That’s the threat usually made against corporations and well-known
people by aggressors trying to launch media-hyped smear campaigns and attacks because
they feel they’ve been wronged, or just because they want publicity.

“From Pepsi and ValuJet to Michael Ovitz and Kathy Lee Gifford, businesses and celebrities
today are finding themselves the front line targets of attacks by the headline-seekers, the
news media, corporate stalkers, disgruntled former employees, individuals seeking a few
minutes of fame. and others whose motives are not always clear. And it’s crisis managers
like author Eric Dezenhall who step in to reduce the damage, fight the bad publicity, and
sometimes even turn the wave of negative opinion back on to the aggressors themselves.

“Can we combat the Culture of Attack? Media relations expert Eric Dezenhall says yes, and
in this examination of incidents from today’s front page news and his personal experience, he
tells us how, while providing strategies that companies and individuals can use to avoid
getting nailed in the first place.”

“. . . a necessary read for business executives around the world . . . . Nail ‘Em! gives us
all a map to navigate the dangerous shoals of our media attack culture.”
– Michael Cherkasky, President, Kroll, Inc.

============================================

“This is a well-written, powerful, and important book . . . . While Dezenhall concentrates
on individual victims . . . it ultimately becomes clear that the real “‘Em” in the title is
all of us.”
– Michael Fumento, Senior Fellow, The Hudson Institute. and author of Science under
Siege.

============================================

“As the number of sad sacks has multiplied, it’s hard to tell who really needs help anymore.
Tragedy used to be an inevitable part of life-now it’s a recreational sport. Our society once
believed it could clear unfair barriers and give others an opportunity to improve their lot. These
tenets built America and launched needed movements like Civil Rights. The modern Culture
of Attack, however, operates under different rules. The culture no longer wants to protect
victims, it wants to recruit them.”
– Eric Dezenhall, Nail ‘Em!

============================================

“Nail ‘Em! is an exploration of the personalities, conflicts, and motivations involved in such
attacks. Who are the likely targets and why? What types of allegations are made? Who
makes them? What do they hope to gain? Eric Dezenhall and his colleagues are retained to
reduce, prevent, and reverse such situations. While admitting that legitimate claims are
lodged against corporations and individuals for acts that harm others, Dezenhall illustrates
that in many cases attacks are waged for far less noble reasons. These are not merely
communications problems, but real conflicts that can only be stopped—- when the aggressor is
placed in jeopardy! (emphasis added).

Dezenhall examines the psychology of the attacker, notorious recent
cases, his personal experiences from the trenches, facts versus falsehoods, the role of the
news media and the Internet, and the popularity of victims in the Culture of Attack that
overshadows contemporary America.”

Looks like MO has embarked on a “more harm than good” mission out of her ignorance with her obesity initiative. I don’t why she could not call it “Healthy living for the Children” or some such positive vibe generating slogan. As usual she is a master of negativity. But in this case it may introduce a new definition for virtuous citizenship (as the first article calls it — see the interesting parallel to cleanliness in the mid 1800s!) based on class, who can feed their children healthy and keep them thin?
As the other two articles from Melissa McEwan mention, it puts more burden on and does more harm for children who are disabled and therefore obese without giving them a prescription of relief. What a mess! In the age of tabloid American idol culture, being not obese (read thin) is all that we need to hear from the WH. But then again what can you expect from a faux fashion icon who thinks she has a perfect body (read arm)?

Looks like MO has embarked on a “more harm than good” mission out of her ignorance with her obesity initiative. I don’t why she could not call it “Healthy living for the Children” or some such positive vibe generating slogan. As usual she is a master of negativity. But in this case it may introduce a new definition for virtuous citizenship (as the first article calls it — see the interesting parallel to cleanliness in the mid 1800s!) based on class, who can feed their children healthy and keep them thin?
As the other two articles from Melissa McEwan mention, it puts more burden on and does more harm for children who are disabled and therefore obese without giving them a prescription of relief. What a mess! In the age of tabloid American idol culture, being not obese (read thin) is all that we need to hear from the WH. But then again what can you expect from a faux fashion icon who thinks she has a perfect body (read arm)?

This is totally amazing. I also think the republicans are using Sarah to infiltrate the republican party. Why else would this independent lady who kicked the butts of republicans be helping the Rino Perry in Texas.

The globalists are going to be really hitting Texas because Texas does NOT want the TransTexas highway. This will the one of the major fights for the globalists, and they are using everything they can to pull it out here.

What political background does Medina have? I am a nurse, but I don’t feel that qualifies me to run for Gov of Texas. Does she has some experience in running a business, been a mayor?

I for one am voting for Kay H in Texas. She is against the toll roads, has been fighting Perry on the imminent domain issue.She has common sense. I am afraid that Medina would lose to a Dem, even in Texas. Bill White, I work with his SIL, seems like a capable guy, I know at least initially supported Clinton. I have to vote character. I promised myself I would stay independent, but I need capable people to vote for. I am afraid I’ll end up voting for a Jesse Ventura type . Jesus, what is wrong with Minnesota anyway? Favre and Jesse!
I’ll look into Medina more.

Mike,
I agree with you, but if Admin smells a rat when it comes to Schumer, it probably is a rat.

Happy birthday Sarah!

I think that WSJ article could have been written by anyone on this board. Did you write that Admin?

Look these are two busy people, stents are much to do. She would have seen him at home. There can be complications from the stents. I don’t know where they are and sometime the blood vessel can tear after a stent in put in, which is an immediate open heart surgery.

What these stupid pundits miss is that Bill and Hillary can’t stand to see people hurting, dying for needing help. The stupid people are so plastic they can’t understand people caring about other people.

How about Lard A*s Brazoid picking up the pace and stepping into Haiti and losing some weight promoting the First ladies (and I use that term with a grain of salt)agenda AND actually doing something of benefit!

I too turned off Fox at 5 when I saw GB was not covering Bill’s hospitalization. Put on CNN and was rewarded by Suzanne reading a statement from Clinton’s counselor about the placement of the 2 stents.

I started crying when I heard BC was hospitalized. I am very worried about him. He has worked so hard for Haiti, heart and soul.

Carville is on CNN right now and he is very worried about what he had heard, but says what they are NOW reporting sounds better than he heard earlier.